Obama rep: All of these Republicans politicizing the Benghazi attack are just so outrageous

posted at 2:01 pm on October 10, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

Prior to today’s House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the security failures in Benghazi, Obama campaign traveling press secretary Jen Psaki appeared on CNN to offer a little pre-fallout spin. I suppose that she’s right, really — if Republicans doing their job and refusing to ease up on getting to the bottom of the many disparate elements involved in the deadly disaster in Libya, just because it’s an election year, is political — then yeah, I’d say they’re getting pretty political.

Well, look, I think that’s quite a heady accusation from Congressman Chaffetz and I know Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have been out there making outrageous political accusations as well. The fact is, to the President and to the administration, this is not a political issue. No one wants to get to the bottom of this more than the President. …The administration is providing information they had access to at the time. And the intelligence community has come out and said that this was an organized act of terrorism. But for us, it’s not political. For the President, it’s not political. And it’s unfortunate it’s being brought to that.

Please spare us all the sanctimoniousness about getting “political,” because whether or not the president of the United States and his administration are equipped with the capabilities to deal with serious threats to our national security sure seems like kind of a big deal that voters deserve to know about.

And let’s not pretend nobody in the Obama administration got political with this by trying to portray a dishonest narrative downplaying the true motives behind the attack. Blaming the entire thing on some stupid video was an embarrassing ploy designed to depict to voters that Barack Obama’s policies in the Middle East have been more successful mitigating terrorist influences than they actually have, and the administration’s inability to keep its story even remotely straight suggests that there was perhaps a little more on their minds than only U.S. security interests. Sure, everybody wants to get to the bottom of this — but the Obama administration also has a very vested interest in misdirecting voters’ attention away from their foreign-policy failures, more so now than ever.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

O’Brien asked: “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?” Chaffetz responded: “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country.”

verbaluce on October 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Yes, we have to make choices. You have X number of dollars. Do you really need more members of the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group stationed at the embassies in Denmark and Sweden than in Libya, especially when the ambassador and security personnel in the latter are BEGGING for additional security?

Anyhoo, since the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in 1,281 days, Rep Chaffetz’s vote had nothing to do with the funding of security or staffing at embassies.

The facility in Benghazi was not a regular consulate despite what the press has been saying. It is not clear what exactly that facility was–it does not appear on the Embassy Tripoli website or in the State Department’s list of consulates–but appears to have been operated on the bureaucratic sly to enable it to avoid expensive and time-consuming security requirements. The Near East (NEA) head, the Diplomatic Security (DS) head, the Undersecretary for Management (M), the Deputy Secretary (D), and the Secretary of State (S), and, of course, the CIA Director, and the head of the NSC, knew this, or should have, and should be fired–if they did not, they also should all be fired. Any investigation must focus on what functions the facility performed, and what risk assessment had been made; in other words, what were the pros and cons of running this place? Was it worth the risk of operating it under the conditions it did? Maybe the answer is “yes,” but it sure does not look that way.

I see there is now a concerted effort to blame the Republican Congress for cutting the State Department’s budget for security. Nonsense. Quite aside from the fact that State is overfunded, and wastes lots of money, if this facility was so important to a variety of agencies and at such risk, the money could not be found in somebody’s budget? If it could not, then we are back to basic questions: Why was the facility there?

This link leads to an empty page. A Google search turns up nothing. This never happened, or conservatives would be pulling those video clips out of their ass every time somebody criticized Bush’s war of choice.

This is a common logic failure among conservatives, who often quote Democrats saying bad things about Saddam as an endorsement of the Iraq war. As if they were really saying “Hey Mr. President, ignore your intelligence professionals and generate reams of your own false intelligence to justify war in Iraq. Then abandon the search for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and go ahead and run the Iraq war as incompetently as possible.”

Except they were saying them BEFORE Bush was POTUS. If you want me to post all of them, I will, but just know that I will bury you with quotes AND CITATIONS that you can go and verify.

And, before you go any further, you should know that I have opposed the Afghan ground war from DAY ONE and the Iraq war from DAY ONE, but not for the reasons that the Left did/does.

I’m not blaming Chaffetz for Benghazi.
But he’s blaming Obama.
Though, I do blame Chaffetz for being a showman and a hack.

verbaluce on October 10, 2012 at 4:47 PM

The administration had 9 months of warnings. Obama blamed a video. He lied to you, me and the rest of the American people. There is a man sitting in the Federal Metropolitan Detention Centre in Los Angeles on a parole violation without bail. He was arrested in the middle of the night by 10 Federal officers with agents. His arrest was filmed and broadcast throughout the world. Our President and Secretary of State filmed a commercial and spent $70,000 apologising to the Pakistani people for the free speech of a man that they have now put in solitary confinement.

The filmmaker may have violated his parole. I don’t know, but I’m an attorney and I know for a fact that a typical parole violation arrest doesn’t involve 10 Federal officers, a perp walk, camera crews, worldwide dissemination, and apology ads by the President and Secretary of State. They have put this man and his family’s lives in danger. This administration has endangered the lives of 7 other Americans and their families, who have been indicted in Egypt and while there is little likelihood of extradition, a conviction in Egypt, which would carry the death sentence would and will be an invitation for others to pull off Theo van Gogh-style executions here.

Do not fall for anymore of the lies. I read about the planned protest at the Cairo embassy the day BEFORE on PJmedia.com. The Egyptian government knew about it as early as 4 September 2012. It was reported on an Arabic website as late as 8 September 2012…that I’ve been able to find and could have been posted earlier. There was NO mention of the video. The stated reason for the protest was to demand the release of the Blind Sheikh.

I have never nor will I defend the Bush administration, but it is gone. Today, we have a different administration and another situation. It is incumbent upon us to hold Obama’s feet to the fire just as Democrats, the Media, and people like me, who are not on the Left but nevertheless did not vote for Bush, did when his predecessor was in office.

Hypocrisy Alert! Clinton, Kerry, Gore & Other Democrats Call for War Against Saddam’s Iraq.
This link leads to an empty page. A Google search turns up nothing. This never happened, or conservatives would be pulling those video clips out of their ass every time somebody criticized Bush’s war of choice.

A trip back to fantasy land from those too dense to understand the difference between threats and posturing and actually starting a war.
Let’s pull out all those video interviews of Larua Bush, declaring a new era of civil rights for Iraqi women. And that would be correct- Iraqi women now have the right to wear head covering at all times or face death by stoning. Meanwhile, Iraq does all it can to help its new master, Iran, bypass the West’s economic sanctions.

So far, in 3 separate legal rulings in US District Court Cases in the Southern District of NY (the same court that Holder wanted to try KSM in), Federal Judges have ruled in lawsuits by 9/11 family members that outside countries-including Iraq and Iran-played a role in the 9/11 attacks. All of those decisions were handed down by Federal Judges appointed by the guy who left Bush 9/11

This is a common logic failure among conservatives, who often quote Democrats saying bad things about Saddam as an endorsement of the Iraq war. As if they were really saying “Hey Mr. President, ignore your intelligence professionals and generate reams of your own false intelligence to justify war in Iraq. Then abandon the search for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and go ahead and run the Iraq war as incompetently as possible.”

FAIL

Constantine on October 10, 2012 at 4:38 PM

Wow, so many Leftist Lies in one post.

Your first problem? All of those Democrats, including Pelosi, were also saying nasty things about Iraq 4 years before they voted on the 2002 Iraq Resolution. Remember, it was Bill Clinton who called for the Liberation of Iraq, and it was his Department of Justice who specifically cited a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and bin laden.

Your second problem is that you’re conveniently ignoring all of the intel data from other countries.

Third problem? You’re accusing the Bush Administration, absent any evidence, of “fabricating” intel in order to justify the Iraq invasion. This despite the fact that formal inquiries said the Bush Admin. did no such thing.

And remember, at the time of her “Yea” vote in 2002, the then Junior Senator from New York, now the most incompetent Secretary of State ever, said she based her vote not on what Bush’s intel people told her, but what her husband’s intel people had told her. Were they all lying as well?

I’m just curious. To the average American, it wouldn’t be the end of the world if we found out that Iraq was in cahoots with al Qaeda, and that Iraq did help al Qaeda in training for the 9/11 attacks.

But that would be the end of the world to the Bush Haters out there, because it would mean that Bush in fact invaded the correct country.

As I told your college chum bayam earlier, do yourself a favor and read the complete texts of the 1998 DOJ bin Laden Indictment, as well as the 2002 Iraq Resolution. You might actually learn something, but I doubt it.

A trip back to fantasy land from those too dense to understand the difference between threats and posturing and actually starting a war.
Let’s pull out all those video interviews of Larua Bush, declaring a new era of civil rights for Iraqi women. And that would be correct- Iraqi women now have the right to wear head covering at all times or face death by stoning. Meanwhile, Iraq does all it can to help its new master, Iran, bypass the West’s economic sanctions.

Fantasy land? I guess all of those Democrats were in fantasy land when they were talking about Saddam’s WMD during the Clinton administration or when they passed The Iraq Liberation Act.

The point is that they cannot claim that they were misled about Saddam’s WMD when they were arguing that he had them before Bush was even in office.

As I said, I opposed the Iraq War, but I’m quite sure for reasons far different from you…so please don’t start whining to me about “poor, dead Iraqis.”

So far, in 3 separate legal rulings in US District Court Cases in the Southern District of NY (the same court that Holder wanted to try KSM in), Federal Judges have ruled in lawsuits by 9/11 family members that outside countries-including Iraq and Iran-played a role in the 9/11 attacks. All of those decisions were handed down by Federal Judges appointed by the guy who left Bush 9/11

Poor Del, are you suggesting that during those trials the same declassified information revealed over the past week was available to the plaintiffs? Not many sources exist when the information is classified- although it certainly aligns with everything that Richard Clarke said before and after Bush tried to destroy his reputation for speaking the truth.

LOL! I said credible, multi-sourced cites, not a book review of a NY Times Hit Piece that conveniently came out on the 9/11 anniversary. Epic Fail there.

Especially since the source of the data is Kurt Eichenwald, who’s not even an authority on terrorism.

As for the 3 trials in NYC that resulted in the rulings by the Federal Judges, 2 of those trials were held as I recall in 2003, so the evidence presented was not classified evidence. The other ruling, last year, I would have to look up.

I notice you avoided answering my question about how Bush could have prevented the 9/11 attacks after receiving those warnings. let me give you some help, as you’re obviously too clueless to figure it out on your own.

Washington, April 9, 2004. A hush fell over the city as George W. Bush today became the first president of the United States ever to be removed from office by impeachment. Meeting late into the night, the Senate unanimously voted to convict Bush following a trial on his bill of impeachment from the House.

Moments after being sworn in as the 44th president, Dick Cheney said that disgraced former national security adviser Condoleezza Rice would be turned over to the Hague for trial in the International Court of Justice as a war criminal. Cheney said Washington would “firmly resist” international demands that Bush be extradited for prosecution as well.

On August 7, 2001, Bush had ordered the United States military to stage an all-out attack on alleged terrorist camps in Afghanistan. Thousands of U.S. special forces units parachuted into this neutral country, while air strikes targeted the Afghan government and its supporting military. Pentagon units seized abandoned Soviet air bases throughout Afghanistan, while establishing support bases in nearby nations such as Uzbekistan. Simultaneously, FBI agents throughout the United States staged raids in which dozens of men accused of terrorism were taken prisoner.

Reaction was swift and furious. Florida Senator Bob Graham said Bush had “brought shame to the United States with his paranoid delusions about so-called terror networks.” British Prime Minister Tony Blair accused the United States of “an inexcusable act of conquest in plain violation of international law.” White House chief counterterrorism advisor Richard Clarke immediately resigned in protest of “a disgusting exercise in over-kill.”

When dozens of U.S. soldiers were slain in gun battles with fighters in the Afghan mountains, public opinion polls showed the nation overwhelmingly opposed to Bush’s action. Political leaders of both parties called on Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan immediately. “We are supposed to believe that attacking people in caves in some place called Tora Bora is worth the life of even one single U.S. soldier?” former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey asked.

When an off-target U.S. bomb killed scores of Afghan civilians who had taken refuge in a mosque, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Aznar announced a global boycott of American products. The United Nations General Assembly voted to condemn the United States, and Washington was forced into the humiliating position of vetoing a Security Council resolution declaring America guilty of “criminal acts of aggression.”

Bush justified his attack on Afghanistan, and the detention of 19 men of Arab descent who had entered the country legally, on grounds of intelligence reports suggesting an imminent, devastating attack on the United States. But no such attack ever occurred, leading to widespread ridicule of Bush’s claims. Speaking before a special commission created by Congress to investigate Bush’s anti-terrorism actions, former national security adviser Rice shocked and horrified listeners when she admitted, “We had no actionable warnings of any specific threat, just good reason to believe something really bad was about to happen.”

The president fired Rice immediately after her admission, but this did little to quell public anger regarding the war in Afghanistan. When it was revealed that U.S. special forces were also carrying out attacks against suspected terrorist bases in Indonesia and Pakistan, fury against the United States became universal, with even Israel condemning American action as “totally unjustified.”

Speaking briefly to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House before a helicopter carried him out of Washington as the first-ever president removed by impeachment, Bush seemed bitter. “I was given bad advice,” he insisted. “My advisers told me that unless we took decisive action, thousands of innocent Americans might die. Obviously I should not have listened.”

Announcing his candidacy for the 2004 Republican presidential nomination, Senator John McCain said today that “George W. Bush was very foolish and naïve; he didn’t realize he was being pushed into this needless conflict by oil interests that wanted to seize Afghanistan to run a pipeline across it.” McCain spoke at a campaign rally at the World Trade Center in New York City.

I am completely and unequivocally against the arrest of the filmmaker – have said this here many times.

I don’t buy into the ‘Obama lied!’ angle.
I’m fine with any effort to truly investigate this and endeavor to fix any lapses in planning etc.
But I don’t see the malice and the nefarious motivations.
It’d be just as easy to spin a story of blame on Chaffetz…or hell, Bush.
So the fact that there’s a bunch of folks who long before all of this had been just as busy attacking Obama for anything and everything isn’t a surprise.
This is just their current angle.
They had one before…they’ll have one after.

Your first problem? All of those Democrats, including Pelosi, were also saying nasty things about Iraq 4 years before they voted on the 2002 Iraq Resolution.

…based on the false intelligence whipped up by the Bush administration.

Remember, it was Bill Clinton who called for the Liberation of Iraq, and it was his Department of Justice who specifically cited a working relationship between Saddam Hussein and bin laden.

Reference?

Your second problem is that you’re conveniently ignoring all of the intel data from other countries.

Provided to those countries by the Bush Administration. An echo chamber does not equal independent verification.

Third problem? You’re accusing the Bush Administration, absent any evidence, of “fabricating” intel in order to justify the Iraq invasion. This despite the fact that formal inquiries said the Bush Admin. did no such thing.

Del Dolemonte on October 10, 2012 at 5:48 PM

We’ve been round and round on this before, and you know you’re on the losing end. You act as if you didn’t know about the testimony of insiders Richard Clarke and George Tenet. Or the fact that Rummy created his own “office of special projects” within the Pentagon to create an Iraq narrative independent of NSA or CIA analysis.

O’Brien asked: “Is it true that you voted to cut the funding for embassy security?” Chaffetz responded: “Absolutely. Look we have to make priorities and choices in this country.”

verbaluce on October 10, 2012 at 4:29 PM

“There’s only one candidate who’ll fight for Big Bird and Elmo!”

- President Barack Obama, 10 October 2012

The federal government gave the CPB a grant of $444.1 million in 2012. Although Chaffetz’s vote was irrelevant since the House budget was never signed into law, perhaps, President Obama should worry more about fighting for security at our embassies than for Big Public TV, which as I detail in the link below, does not need our tax dollars:

They knew that there was no protest in Benghazi, no “spontaneous uprising,” and that it was a terrorist attack on 12 September 2012; yet, he and his administration continued to blame the video for weeks. Obama went before the UN and blamed the video. Cairo Carney was still trying to blame it today.

There is no doubt that they knew and that they lied; however, I tend to believe that the aftermath of Benghazi is not the real story.

The real questions are:

1. Why was Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, a known hotbed of Islamic terrorism (the majority of foreign fighters in Iraq came from this area of Libya), on the anniversary of 9/11 in the first place?

2. Who supplied the weapons that killed him and the other 3 Americans?

Who wants to bet that the answers to both have something to do with the “liberation” of Libya? Wasn’t Benghazi and its “poor rebels” the basis upon which the administration relied for using its R2P doctrine? Didn’t we arm the “rebels” through some intermediaries?

Was Stevens in Benghazi to try to retrieve weapons that we had provided to those “poor rebels,” who were in fact terrorists affiliated with Al Qaeda?

I’m not blaming Chaffetz for Benghazi.
But he’s blaming Obama.
Though, I do blame Chaffetz for being a showman and a hack.

verbaluce on October 10, 2012 at 4:47 PM

I can’t believe you’re going to defend this. What absolute political hacks. You gave us the smartest man in the world. Yet he’s too stupid to get people under him that can prioritize the global hot spots in consulate and embassy assignment?

When are you too embarrassed to keep defending him? When do you swallow your pride and admit the administrations in in over it’s head?

Job one of the president is commander-in chief! In that role he should safeguard all Americans! Obama is an epic fail in this regard and has aided and abetted our enemies! He should be impeached and not given the honor of running for president in this formerly great nation!

Politicizing an attack?
You mean, like Obama talking about killing Bin Laden about a million times and his buddies coming out with a movie about it right before the election? You mean THAT kind of politicizing? You are right, that is sooo outrageous.

Shameless, no morals, no conscience, no humanity, that is Obama and his little trained minions.

my bible says that the mouth speaks what the heart is full of (NIV; Matt 12:34, Luke 6:45) In other words, you talk about the things that are on your heart; what’s important to you… for Republicans, especially Team Romney, that seems to be the security of Americans. For Team Obama, its Big Bird